Previous | Next

Part 1: Systemwide Focus
Organizational Overview

Technology Transfer Advisory Committee

Oversight of the University's technology transfer program is provided by the Technology Transfer Advisory Committee (TTAC). This standing committee, chaired by the Senior Vice President—Business and Finance, meets quarterly to advise on technology transfer policy and to evaluate the effectiveness of the technology transfer program.


John E. Bowers
Professor, Electrical and Computer Engineering, UCSB

Gayle J. Byock
Assistant Vice Chancellor - Research and Planning, UCLA

Joseph Cerny
Vice Chancellor - Research, UCB

John Edmond
Professor, Biological Chemistry, UCLA

Terence A. Feuerborn
Executive Director, Research Administration & Technology Transfer, UCOP

Cheryl A. Fragiadakis
Department Head, Technology Transfer, LBNL

Warren M. Gold
Professor, Medicine, UCSF

Harry W. Green, II
Vice Chancellor - Research, Office of Research Affairs, UCR

Nora A. Hackett
Technology Liaison Officer, UCD

V. Wayne Kennedy
Senior Vice President - Business and Finance, UCOP

George L. Kenyon
Dean, School of Pharmacy; Professor, Chemistry & Pharmaceutical Chemistry, UCSF

C. Judson King
Provost & Senior Vice President - Academic Affairs, UCOP

John F. Lundberg
Deputy General Counsel, UCOP

Peter B. Lyons
Program Director, Industrial Partnership Office, LANL

Karena McKinley
Acting Director, Industrial Partnership and Commercialization, LLNL

David G. Schetter
Director, Office of University/Industry Research & Technology, UCI

Robert N. Shelton
Vice Provost, Office of Research, UCOP

David D. Sworder
Acting Vice Chancellor - Research, UCSD

Robert K. Webster
Assistant Director, DANR Programs, UCD

Todd W. Wipke
Professor, Chemistry, UCSC

Much of the work of the TTAC is guided by the final report of an ad hoc committee of faculty and administrators established in 1993 to examine the University’s overall approach to technology transfer. The March 1994 final report of the Ad Hoc Technology Transfer Advisory Committee concluded that technology transfer activities must be an integral part of the intellectual culture and research environment and that the enhancement of research and education, rather than maximization of patent income, must be the highest priority of the University’s technology transfer activities. It further stated that, to the greatest extent possible, the technology transfer program should be faculty-centered, inventor-centered, and campus/Laboratory-centered. A series of recommendations were put forth that were consistent with these premises and these recommendations continue to guide the conduct of the technology transfer program.

Major Developments

There were a number of important developments in FY96 consistent with these recommendations that have influenced the technology transfer program and its relationship to inventors, the campuses, private industry, and other constituent groups. Among these are:

California Commodity Boards—In January 1996, OTT issued operating guidance on intellectual property issues negotiated between between the University, the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) and the California Commodity Committee, representing 48 State commodity associations and boards. The guidance included agreed-upon model provisions for rights to intellectual property arising from research supported by these sponsors. The use of these provisions should significantly shorten the historically lengthy amount of time required to negotiate research agreements with these groups and is expected to generally improve relationships between the parties.

Equity Policy—In February 1996, President Atkinson issued the University Policy On Accepting Equity When Licensing University Technology. The Policy acknowledges that, under certain circumstances, accepting equity in a licensee enables the University to realize the full potential of the technology. It permits acceptance of equity as partial consideration for receiving a license and sets forth priciples and parameters for entering into such arrangements.

Clinical Trials—In January 1996, OTT issued policy guidance on agreements with private sponsors for drug and device testing using human subjects. This was in response to the need for clear and flexible guidelines to expedite the negotiation of contracts for such investigations. The guidelines provide campuses with greater authority and more flexibility in the negotiation of intellectual property rights.

Conference on UC Relationships with Industry— In September 1995, TTAC endorsed plans for a systemwide conference to review the existing structure and principles that govern UC relationships with industry in research and technology transfer. The conference has been scheduled for January 1997.

Royalty Distribution— Throughout FY96, TTAC received various proposals to revise the Patent Policy royalty distribution formula. Completion of the final version of the policy is anticipated for FY97.

Organizational Structure

In FY96, substantial progress continued to be made toward implementing the distributed approach to the organization of technology transfer as envisioned in the Ad Hoc Committee report. Under this model, OTT has worked closely with each campus in establishing a campus technology transfer program suited to the individual campus’ needs and aspirations. Certain functions, such as policy development, oversight of legal matters, systemwide information management, and legislative review continue to be coordinated by OTT. Other functions are assigned to individual campuses or DOE Laboratories on a case-by-case basis depending on each institution’s ability and desire to take on the particular responsibility. Highlights of the resulting systemwide structure and function are as follows:

  OTT continues to maintain broad responsibility for University technology transfer activities. During FY96, OTT received new invention disclosures from six campuses and managed a large portfolio of older inventions from all nine campuses and the three DOE Laboratories. In addition to its patenting and licensing activities, OTT also carries out certain systemwide functions, including policy guidance on intellectual property issues, legislative analysis and response on technology transfer matters, legal review of all proposed license agreements negotiated by OTT and campus offices, and coordination of annual reporting. OTT also provides a variety of training programs for all locations and manages systemwide communications and coordination pertaining to technology transfer activities.

  At the campus level, four campuses, UCB, UCLA, UCSD, and UCSF maintain independent technology transfer offices. Both the UC Berkeley Office of Technology Licensing (UCB-OTL) and UC Los Angeles Business Research Partnerships (UCLA-BRP) Office continues to administer the patenting and licensing of inventions disclosed at their campuses as they have done since their offices were established in January 1990. UC San Diego officially established its independent Technology Transfer Office (UCSD-TTO) in October 1994 and has been responsible for managing newly reported campus inventions since that time. During FY96, a Memorandum of Understanding was negotiated with UCSF that resulted in the official establishment of the Office of Technology Management (OTM) as an independent technology transfer office effective July 1, 1996.

  UC Irvine’s Office of University/Industry Research & Technology (UCI-UIRT) is responsible for marketing and licensing selected new campus inventions. OTT continues to provide administrative support for these inventions, including patent prosecution, fiscal administration and record-keeping, and manages all aspects of the other cases in the Irvine campus portfolio.

  Each of the campuses has designated one member of the professional staff as the patent coordinator who is responsible for coordination of the campus technology transfer function and for providing official liaison with OTT.

  Four campuses (UCD, UCR, UCSB, and UCSC) have been assigned a specific OTT staff member to serve as a technology transfer specialist who spends substantial time at the campus and is dedicated to serving the unique technology transfer needs of the campus.

  The DOE Laboratories continue to manage their own technology transfer activities as they have since 1988, but OTT continues to be responsible for some Laboratory cases, such as those involving co-inventors from the UC campuses. Offices at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), and Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) are responsible for licensing intellectual property and for negotiating Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs) with industry.

Previous | Next